Where did the Ripper likely live?

[Monty]

Hey Monty

Sorry but which evidence exactly do u mean? The fact she was killed in a dark corner??

Hi Sarah,

You agree with me alright.

The fact she was found drunk, the fact she gave a false name, her movements after release (if indeed Lewande did see her) and the location of her body.

That, to me, suggests she may have been soliciting.

However, Colin has a point, this should be moved to an appropriate thread.

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

I'll bet Emma Smith didn't think twice about making her way to the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, on the evening before she was attacked.

The fact that she was seen there, by her fellow lodger, Margaret Hames, might suggest that many a Spitalfields dollymop was quite mobile.

. . .

But, would some 'commuter' that might have had a particular affinity for the sort of middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymop that tended to flock to the environs of Spitalfields, from all other quarters of the metropolis, have had such a familiarity? With the broader surroundings, that is?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

It almost sounds as though you suspect that JtR would likely have been an immigrant (not necessarily from a different country, but someone new to the area) who knew his way around Whitechapel/Spitalfields, but had not yet learned a wide area?

But that last sentence suggests you suspect a commuter who really knows a very small area WELL -- well enough to kill and then escape undetected.

What are you saying?

"It almost sounds as though you suspect ..."

"But that last sentence suggests you suspect ..."

I do not "suspect" anything at all, with regard to where 'Jack the Ripper' might have resided, during the latter months of 1888.

I am simply suggesting a possibility!

That being that the remarkably narrow dispersion and pedal traversability of the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', could be the result of a perpetrator that was intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity, but much less familiar with its broader surroundings.

If Montague Druitt, for example, had harbored a particular affinity for the sort of middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymop that tended to flock to the environs of Spitalfields, from all other quarters of the metropolis, then he might have chosen to spend his weekend evenings in the area that was to become the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'; just as a modern-day 'Druitt' that harbors a particular affinity for curry, might choose to spend his weekend evenings strolling up and down Brick Lane, even though he actually resides in Blackheath.

Philip Hutchinson commutes by train, from Guildford to Whitechapel, three-or-four nights, each week, in order to conduct a guided 'Ripper' tour. In so doing, he has come to know the immediate vicinity of the 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', like the back of his hand. But, he is much less familiar with its broader surroundings.

I would contend that the 'local' inhabitants of the 'Whitechapel' area, in 1888, e.g. Emma Smith, Margaret Hames, ... and George Hutchinson, were actually quite familiar with the broader surroundings of the area, in which they resided.

Yet, 'Jack the Ripper', as far as we know, never struck in those broader surroundings, which included Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Mile End, Limehouse, Ratcliff, Shadwell, Wapping, Billingsgate, Ludgate, Newgate, St. Luke, etc.

Why?

Was he, perhaps, not particularly familiar with many of those areas?

I may be wrong to do so, but I am inclined to believe that many of his victims were quite familiar with many of these areas that constituted the broader surroundings of London's inner-most 'East End', in 1888.

It should be noted that I have not included the areas that constituted London's outer 'East End', in 1888, within the broader surroundings of its inner-most 'East End': Namely the Parishes of St. Mary Stratford Bow, Bromley St. Leonard, and All Saints Poplar.

There can be no rational justification for the consideration of these areas to have been 'local' to the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'.

A case, in point: William Bury did not reside 'locally' to the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', during the latter months of 1888; and if he was, in fact, the 'Whitechapel Murder', then he was a 'commuter' serial killer.

..., there is more to the 'was Jack a local' question than the knowledge of streets. The movement of local people throughout the day should also be considered.

"The movement of local people throughout the day should also be considered."

Eh?

If the 'routine-activity space' of the typical Spitalfields denizen, in 1888, was actually larger than the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', then what I have attempted to convey, above, may actually be rather applicable.

As above, this might suggest that the remarkably narrow dispersion and pedal traversability of the 'killing field', is the result of a perpetrator that was intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity, but much less familiar with its broader surroundings: This suggesting, in turn, a 'commuter', as opposed to a 'marauder'.

But, of course, we don't know the size of the 'routine-activity space' of the typical Spitalfields denizen, in 1888.

In any case, the notion that the narrow dispersion and pedal traversability of the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', somehow suggests a greater likelihood that the 'Whitechapel Murderer' was a 'marauder' serial killer, is misconceived.

The bottom line is that a theoretical 'center' of an observed 'killing field' - any observed 'killing field' - is the single most likely place of residence of the offender. Period! No if's; no and's; no but's!

But, in the case of the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', its remarkably narrow dispersion and pedal traversability actually opens the door to a greater number of realistic and truly possible scenarios that involve a 'commuter' offender.

Note:

I did not say that it opens the door to a greater degree of probability that we are dealing with a 'commuter' offender!

I said that it opens the door to a greater number of realistic and truly possible scenarios that involve a 'commuter' offender!

~~~

So, where do I believe that 'Jack the Ripper' resided, during the latter months of 1888?

I plainly and simply do not know!

But, were I to embark upon some sort of investigative 'canvass' / 'random-search' endeavor; I would begin my search - in accordance with what will be a revision of my Geographic Profile Model - at the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields; and move outward, in conjunction with the elliptical proportions of the accordant probability distribution.

~~~

I don't believe that a discussion regarding whether Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute is going to provide any insight as to "Where did the Ripper likely live?".

From the thread entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was":

Nor is it entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was".

The thread, from which I derived the overall quotation, is most certainly entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was", Neil.

[Steven Russell]

This is very impressive stuff, Colin, and I can only claim to just about understand the maths so I hope you won't think me ignorant or arrogant when I ask the following:
Is not a perfectly elliptical model flawed in that it does not take into account population density? What I mean is that some streets and areas were more densely populated than others so would not this make it more likely that the Ripper lived in these places than more sparsely populated areas?
For example, in some of your diagrams, the Ripper is just as likely to have lived in the river as at any other location equidistant from the epicentre.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Colin Roberts]

Is not a perfectly elliptical model flawed in that it does not take into account population density? What I mean is that some streets and areas were more densely populated than others so would not this make it more likely that the Ripper lived in these places than more sparsely populated areas?
For example, in some of your diagrams, the Ripper is just as likely to have lived in the river as at any other location equidistant from the epicentre.

That is a very worthwhile question, Steve.

Mark Ripper, aka 'm_w_r', raised the same issue a few weeks ago, in the thread entitled "Laura Richards knows who the ripper was".

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the elliptical probability distribution is "flawed", with regard to this particular issue, - i.e. with regard to the fact that the underlying distribution of resident population was quite obviously non-uniform - but I would certainly concede that it is, perhaps, somewhat 'inadequate'.

Unfortunately, the task of calculating, and then re-allocating the portion of the probability distribution that covers the River Thames would be arduous, to say the very least.

Assuming that we were able to complete the task, with a reasonable degree of precision and accuracy, we might then feel compelled to calculate and re-allocate the portions of the probability distribution that cover the various basins of St. Katharine & London Docks, Spitalfields Market, Bishopsgate Goods Depot, the open thoroughfare of Whitechapel High Street, the empty lot on the corner of ..., etc.

At some point, in the very early stages of this whole process, the Law of Diminishing Returns would invariably take effect.

I believe that we must accept the relative 'inadequacies' of an elliptical probability distribution, as it would apply to the elusive 1888 residence of 'Jack the Ripper', and in so doing, remember that its sole purpose is to provide an enhancement of our investigative focus.

Those that would turn to geographic profiling, in hopes of actually being able to pinpoint the residence of a particular offender, should think again.

This isn't a Hollywood studio.

[Steven Russell]

Thanks, Colin.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Indeed it's possible that Lawende didn't even see Eddowes but rather another woman/another couple entirely. But what do we really think the chances of that are? There's a great similarity to it, I think, to the Stride sightings in the lead up to her death earlier that night.

What it all comes down to is that it's very unlikely that Catherine would have bothered taking advantage of one spot for one hour out of every week when there was no certainty of her seclusion even then, and given the condition she was in on the night of her death, when there was so many other places that she could have taken potential clients.

And it doesn't make the attitudes of Harris and particularly Levy any less suspicious.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

I disagree.

Obviously, within that timeframe of 1am till 2am, Eddowes utilised that corner.

That's my assessment of the evidence.

Oh....and there is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty if Jack lived in the area.

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

Oh....and there is absolutely no way of knowing with certainty if Jack lived in the area.

You did well to 'justify' your presence, in this thread, Neil.



On a serious note, I must agree wholeheartedly:

"there is absolutely no way [absolutely no way, of any kind] of knowing with certainty if Jack lived in the area."

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Then your assessment of the evidence is very narrow minded. There's no question at all that certain prostitutes would have had specific locations that they took clients to, but to suggest that not only was Kate observant enough to notice Morris's pattern of movements during a one hour period, one night per week, and that she would then presume that Mitre Square was the best place in the area to take any clients she might pick up during that hour is, I think, bordering on the silly.

The aim of the prostitute - full time, part time or occasional - was to conduct business with their client as quickly as possible, by almost any means, collect the money and move on, be that moving on to another client or to the pub or wherever. I just can't believe that Kate would have walked the journey from Bishopsgate station to Mitre Square for the sake of the knowledge that Morris would not be present for that hour (even if we presume she was aware of that fact), when in any case there was still the 3 entrances that any old person could enter from, including a police officer on the beat. Never mind Morris, the humble warehouse worker, a current police officer could have been the one to stumble across her 'in the act', less than an hour after she had been released from the station for another indiscretion! Hmm....

Having said all of that, I do agree with your assessment of the Ripper's home.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Ben]

I would have to agree that the chances of Lawende's couple NOT being Eddowes and her killer must be considered slim.

And a close up look at a contemporary map reveals many small inter-connecting roads, alleyways and courts, throughout Whitechapel and Spitalfields. I know that people who are unfamiliar with the area today (and the layout has been drastically simplified) quickly get disorientated. So the evidence points to someone who knew the streets – probably walked them regularly.

Absolutely, Lechmere. Agreed entirely.

[Ben]

Thanks for your comments, Colin. We don’t appear to disagree on a great deal here, surprisingly, but I can assure you that I wasn’t “lobbying” for any particular suspect or “POI”. It was observed earlier in this discussion that the ripper could have procured his victims and made good his escapes by restricting himself to the main thoroughfares, whereas I feel that the evidence from the Mitre Square murder argues strongly against this, and points instead towards his use of the smaller alleys that allowed for a more direct retreat to the northern end of Goulston Street.

A southerly bolt into Whitechapel High Street and then north up the entire length of Goulston Street is just not a viable option, as the killer was bound to encounter PC Long on his beat. Since the location of the apron remnant was roughly opposite the eastern end of New Goulston Street, it is likely – or at least I consider it so – that the killer approached from this direction, and this would have necessitated the use (and concomitant knowledge) of the smaller streets, which were largely unfrequented by “outsiders”.

I certainly can’t accept that he wandered to Goulston Street “aimlessly”, or that the killer’s successful escape from every crime scene had anything to do with aimless wandering. You sensibly observed on another thread that the district was host to a number of cul-de-sac courts. Surely these would have been a potential death trap for the unwary and unfamiliar commuter-killer, who would have been compelled to double back in the direction of his crime as soon as he realized his costly error?

There is only so much luck that one can realistically attribute to the killer.

I don’t think the relatively closely clustered nature of the murder locations indicate that the killer was familiar with that region only. A Spitalfields-based murderer may well have been very familiar with Limehouse, but the problem with committing a murder there was that it necessarily entailed more exposure on the streets as he made his escape, walking all the way from Limehouse to Spitalfields, with knife and innards secreted about his person. It is very likely, to my mind, that the ripper’s ability to escape undetected was due to his ability to get off the streets relatively quickly, and this necessitated a nearby bolt-hole.

There really isn’t any evidence to suggest that the environs of Spitalfields were a Mecca for “middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymops” anymore than other areas of London were. Nor is likely, as far as I’m concerned, that the killer had a specific type of victim in mind, or that he had any preference as to age. If the murderer was locally-based, the most common type of woman he was likely to find on the streets in the small hours would have been a middle-aged prostitute.

As far as the rarity of the “commuter” offender goes, Canter made the following observation in his book “Criminal Shadows”:

“In studies we have carried out, the “commuters” have been very rare. As a consequence, we have not obtained enough examples to establish whether the distances between crimes would enable us to tell if the offender was “commuting” into the area.”

He also observed the following of the Whitechapel murderer:

“The most parsimonious assumption to make is that the scenes of his crimes were within walking distance of each other because he walked to them from where he lived”.

As for West End toff-ists, I wasn’t thinking of you as one such proponent. I probably mentioned them because I’m haunted by the memory of having geography-related discussions with people who clearly were of that mindset.

“My revised model, which will be based upon the murder-site mean-center and a theoretical murder-site median-center, will see its focal point at the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, and will possibly place the Victoria Home for Working Men within the 95th percentile of its accordant probability distribution.”

Very interesting. I look forward to hearing more.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

I would have to agree that the chances of Lawende's couple NOT being Eddowes and her killer must be considered slim

Ho ! Personally, I'm totally undecided and at 50/50.

On one hand, the tight timescale makes it very probable that the couple that Lawende saw was Eddowes and JTR.

On the otherhand, there is the fact that Eddowes' body was found in the opposite corner of the square to the passage where Lawende saw the couple, and the nightwatchman, with his door ajar and casting light, professed to have seen nor heard a thing. And it's a really echo-y place at night.

There were other entrances to the square, and the logic would be (as per Jack's other murders) to get into the murder spot and silence the victim as quickly as possible.

Moreover, Lawende saw the couple for such a short time, in bad light, and seems to have been concentrated on the man. I think that he identified Eddowes only by a bit of fabric -but he might of been pre-convinced by the
Police that the woman that he had seen, must have been Eddowes (given that time line). And that falsifies the results.

So, although half of me thinks that you are right , Ben -half of me has a serious doubt.

[Monty]

Ruby,

Watkins checked his watch as Morris was collecting his lamp. He stated the time was 1.45am.

Morris stated he opened the door moments before Watkins called. Therefore the jar was only ajar briefly before Watkins called Morris, not all night.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;190641][QUOTE]

Ho ! Personally, I'm totally undecided and at 50/50.

On one hand, the tight timescale makes it very probable that the couple that Lawende saw was Eddowes and JTR.

On the otherhand, there is the fact that Eddowes' body was found in the opposite corner of the square to the passage where Lawende saw the couple, and the nightwatchman, with his door ajar and casting light, professed to have seen nor heard a thing. And it's a really echo-y place at night.

There were other entrances to the square, and the logic would be (as per Jack's other murders) to get into the murder spot and silence the victim as quickly as possible.

Moreover, Lawende saw the couple for such a short time, in bad light, and seems to have been concentrated on the man. I think that he identified Eddowes only by a bit of fabric -but he might of been pre-convinced by the
Police that the woman that he had seen, must have been Eddowes (given that time line). And that falsifies the results.

So, although half of me thinks that you are right , Ben -half of me has a serious doubt.

I'm beginning to revise my opinion on this, Ruby.

Morris opened the door about 2-3 minutes before Watkins arrived. Let's say 1.42-1.43.

If the couple were Jack and Kate, then Jack would most likely have been there when Morris opened the door. And, Morris wouldn't have seen anything because Watkins had to shine his lamp in the corner, and he must not have heard anything. So, a couple standing at Church Passage/Duke Street would not have heard anything either.

Jack could have been in there at 1.32 killed her by 1.33. Couple arrive at 1.34 and stand chatting while the fellas pass by. Jack has mutilated and left by 1.40. Morris opens his door 1.42-1.43.

Is that more of a stretch than the following?

Jack is standing having a good old chin wag with Kate. Our 3 fella pass by at 1.35. As soon as their backs are turned Jack is in the square and has killed her by say 1.37. He has say 5 minutes minimum 6.5 minutes maximum to avoid at least being seen walking down the street by Watkins or Harvey, or 7 minutes maximum if he leaves by the Orange Market. More than likely, he was there when Morris opened the door, and escapes Watkins by maybe a minute.

Hmmmm.....

And we know with JTR, he was willing to kill with people nearby, e.g. Chapman, so I don't think the couple standing at the end of Church Passage would have phased him too much.

I suppose it all rests on Lawende's ID.

[Malcolm X]

[QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;190694][QUOTE=Rubyretro;190641]

I'm beginning to revise my opinion on this, Ruby.

Morris opened the door about 2-3 minutes before Watkins arrived. Let's say 1.42-1.43.

If the couple were Jack and Kate, then Jack would most likely have been there when Morris opened the door. And, Morris wouldn't have seen anything because Watkins had to shine his lamp in the corner, and he must not have heard anything. So, a couple standing at Church Passage/Duke Street would not have heard anything either.

Jack could have been in there at 1.32 killed her by 1.33. Couple arrive at 1.34 and stand chatting while the fellas pass by. Jack has mutilated and left by 1.40. Morris opens his door 1.42-1.43.

Is that more of a stretch than the following?

Jack is standing having a good old chin wag with Kate. Our 3 fella pass by at 1.35. As soon as their backs are turned Jack is in the square and has killed her by say 1.37. He has say 5 minutes minimum 6.5 minutes maximum to avoid at least being seen walking down the street by Watkins or Harvey, or 7 minutes maximum if he leaves by the Orange Market. More than likely, he was there when Morris opened the door, and escapes Watkins by maybe a minute.

Hmmmm.....

And we know with JTR, he was willing to kill with people nearby, e.g. Chapman, so I don't think the couple standing at the end of Church Passage would have phased him too much.

I suppose it all rests on Lawende's ID.

my guess is that this bloke with Eddowes is JTR, but the description of him is about 50% inacurate..... the timing is simply too tight for someone else to quickly sneak in.

did JTR worry if seen?....... no, only if stared at for a long time strait into the face.